Re: Reviewer role for WCAG

One way to do this might be to divide along members vs. subscribers:

- working group members: commit, complete assigned action items, vote

- subscribers to the group list: read, comment

This is almost like the WG/IG roles in e.g. DOM.

People who don't want the list mail but are willing to be resources and be
asked occasional questions might be able to so indicate, but this doesn't
sound all that realistic to me.  Ususally these people you have to chase;
they don't step forward voluntarily.

Al

At 03:27 PM 2000-03-01 -0500, you wrote:
>I am not clear if I support formalising the role or not. Probably on balance
>I do - at least avertising that this is a useful way someone can contribute
>to the group without being a full participant is a good idea.
>
>As an alternative to deleting user agent and authoring tools as possible
>areas of interest it may be worth adding a note to the end of the list
>pointing out that for those areas there are other groups that can provide
>more direct engagement in the interest area, and that they also welcome
>reviewers (but we would need to discuss this across the relevant groups)
>
>Cheers
>
>Charles McCN
>
>On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>
>  Charles,
>  
>  Your comment suggests that we should not include "Authoring Tools" and 
>  "User Agents" in the list of interests.  I can understand that and agree
to 
>  delete those two checks.
>  
>  however, I'm not clear if you support formalizing the role or not.
>  
>  --wendy
>  
>  At 02:44 PM 3/1/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>  >A reviewer role is extremely helpful. Although we did not formalise it
in AU
>  >we had seveeral people who had agreed to act in such a way, and the UA
group
>  >also put considerable effort into securing commitments to review from
people
>  >who were not able to be full participants in the working group.
>  >
>  >It would seem that if someone's interest is in Authoring Tools or User
Agents
>  >perhaps they should be encouraged to join the relevant working groups
(or act
>  >as reviewers for those groups). I think that there is a need for the
>  >different groups to review each others' work (in particular AU has a very
>  >heavy dependency on WCAG) but I think that review needs to be done by
members
>  >of the actual working group.
>  >
>  >Cheers
>  >
>  >Charles McCN
>  >
>  >On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>  >
>  >   Hello,
>  >
>  >   The chairs and I have been discussing a "Reviewer" role for the working
>  >   group.  I thought that this had been discussed at one of the
telecons, but
>  >   I don't see it represented in any of the minutes since January.
>  >
>  >[etc]
>  
>  --
>  wendy a chisholm
>  world wide web consortium
>  web accessibility initiative
>  madison, wi usa
>  tel: +1 608 663 6346
>  /--
>  
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2000 16:05:28 UTC